Why would God send someone to hell over suicide?

[Amaris]

Granted, but they've got to have a logic to them. I don't think yours did, IMHO, but probably others don't see it as I do.

I wouldn't quote Ghemor above, say, and launch into a discussion of Agrippa and Acts, not at least without relating its context to the above quote.

It's pretty well known that I tend to ramble.


J.

 

[Michael Chris]

Whatever you thought I was railing against, I suggest you reread the posts.

I suggest you do that, actually. Some of your responses are essentially non sequitir. If I may intentionally invoke Godwin's Law, it'd be a little like trying to explain the mechanics of Auschwitz and being interrupted by someone loudly exclaiming the Holocaust was evil.

That's the most concise way I've ever heard to describe talking to J!

 

[Amaris]

Whatever you thought I was railing against, I suggest you reread the posts.

I suggest you do that, actually. Some of your responses are essentially non sequitir. If I may intentionally invoke Godwin's Law, it'd be a little like trying to explain the mechanics of Auschwitz and being interrupted by someone loudly exclaiming the Holocaust was evil.

That's the most concise way I've ever heard to describe talking to J!

Then you won't have that problem in the future, then, will you?


J.

 

[Michael Chris]

huh?

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

But you never noticed the fact that while some Christians HAVE made the mistakes you mention, that believing does not have to come with a hostile attitude, does not have to condemn or hinder science, or discourage investigation? I realize there's much I still don't know, and am still trying to learn, and I have said as much in this thread and on multiple occasion.

Please understand that I did not say every Christian I saw, and would not throw every Christian into such a group.

Still, it does kind of beg the question as to whether you see those of us who are believers and do not act the way you suggest as freak accidents, of a sort (kind of like escaping serious radiation exposure without cancer), and admits no possibility that our faith could be a good thing.

This is part of why I will not stop speaking out--it encourages others to speak out, because it does no good if we stay silent out of fear of what others might think. And it takes more voices to make any kind of difference when you're not rude or acting the fool, because people do tend to pay attention to the negative far more than they do the positive. (Kind of like that old rule in customer service that 1 customer with a bad experience tells 10 people but the customer with a positive experience may only tell 1.) It's a lot easier to pay attention to the crazy and sensational than it is to something that presents itself in a civilized manner.

That's kind of what it made it sound as though you'd done...weighted the sensational because of its sensationalism and not given as much weight to the more levelheaded simply because it's not exhibiting the same loud, flashy, and obnoxious behavior.

The bad behavior of other Christians had a lot to do with why I almost left the church. I did consider the question of whether there was a Creator at all, but as I may have mentioned before, the design of the Universe itself spoke to me of an Artist behind it all. It was more a question to my mind of who it was that spoke for that Creator. And the behavior of fellow Christians, the condemnation I had experienced, and so on, did put me in very severe doubt. In the end, however, I came to feel--and I still feel, after many years--that a great deal of my calling is to make restitution, in a sense, to work to undo the damage that has been done by others calling themselves Christians.

So you deal in a bit of Christian Apologetics.

You could say that.

 

[Holdfast]

Because they needed a practical reason to keep everyone from killing themselves to go to heaven.

"there's this wonderful amazing place you'll go to... but ONLY if you follow our rules and believe this this and that, but not that over there..... and you can't take the easiest way to get there."

This sort of sounds like Monopoly. If you believe in reincarnation, do you get to collect £200 every time?

if you are agnostic, you are also an atheist, because if you don't know if any god claim is true or not, you cannot believe that it is (which is what a theist is, and atheism covers everything else.)

... I'm not sure I agree with this assessment. It's been said and said: philosophically speaking, agnosticism is a position about knowledge, not belief.

You may be an agnostic ("I don't know there is a god") and still a theist ("but I think there is"). It may not be a rational belief, but rationality is not the end of everything and all (and I say that as an hardcore materialist atheist).

You're right that they are two different things. However, knowledge is a subset of belief. If you don't think you know something, how can you believe it?

As an agnostic who likes the idea of God, this is probably the easiest question to answer in the entire thread.

I believe because I choose to, and it makes me happier to do so.

It's analogous to how I choose to believe that my senses tell me something about a real material world that I live in rather than everything being unreal and my perceptions being unreal as well. I can't KNOW that the world exists, because everything I know about it is based on my brain's interpretation. But for day-to-day life (rather than a philosophical discussion) I BELIEVE that it does, because I'd go mad if I didn't. Technically, I am agnostic about whether reality actually exists, but am a believer that it does. I can never know whether it does, but I choose to have faith. And so I function better within it, whether it's real or illusion. Now apply the same logic to faith in a God and you will understand why an agnostic is not necessarily an atheist.

Returning to the original topic, God doesn't like people fucking with his actuarial tables and makes sure that if you mess the math up, you know about it and don't do it again.

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide which parts of this post are serious and which are frivolous. Enjoy. Answers at the back of the book. And no cheating; St Peter keeps a tally, you know.

 

[Amaris]

Still, it does kind of beg the question as to whether you see those of us who are believers and do not act the way you suggest as freak accidents, of a sort (kind of like escaping serious radiation exposure without cancer), and admits no possibility that our faith could be a good thing.

Well, keep in mind that I did not lose my memories, I just stopped believing that what exists has a supernatural quality to it. I see faith like I see hope. There's nothing inherently wrong with it, it's what you do with it.

This is part of why I will not stop speaking out--it encourages others to speak out, because it does no good if we stay silent out of fear of what others might think. And it takes more voices to make any kind of difference when you're not rude or acting the fool, because people do tend to pay attention to the negative far more than they do the positive. (Kind of like that old rule in customer service that 1 customer with a bad experience tells 10 people but the customer with a positive experience may only tell 1.) It's a lot easier to pay attention to the crazy and sensational than it is to something that presents itself in a civilized manner.

That's kind of what it made it sound as though you'd done...weighted the sensational because of its sensationalism and not given as much weight to the more levelheaded simply because it's not exhibiting the same loud, flashy, and obnoxious behavior.

Not to worry, I didn't. The conclusion at which I have arrived took many, many steps (the thousand cuts I mentioned).

You could say that.

All I continue to hope (and I had this hope as a member of the faith) is that reasonable, compassionate Christianity wins out. I have no doubt that there could be another schism in the church coming this century.

J.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

I would not be surprised if there is a schism. I don't claim to be anywhere up there with Martin Luther, but I've had some times where I feel like I'm nailing my theses into some doors. You'd be surprised where you'll find people with opinions like mine. The first time I ever heard a pastor say from the pulpit that it was OK to not believe the world was created in 6 days was, believe it or not, backwoods Arkansas. And the guy was not a Northern transplant, either...you could tell he'd been raised rural. I just about fell off my chair when I heard that--I mean, how refreshing! And quite a warning about not underestimating people, too.

So we're out there, believe me. The trouble is getting the mic, because again, we're not sensational or the kind of thing the popular media gets hold of as easily. We're not good ratings. The Internet is probably our only REAL way to get the message out.

Oh...and this is just a personal speculation, but I've also thought that if the Orthodox Church could just ditch the idea that women don't have the same position as men, that could be huge. While the Orthodox Church in its past does have some bad things to its name, like any body that has existed for over a thousand years (the pogroms being the last bad example), it has NOT gone anti-science and in modern times doesn't seem to have the mean streak towards non-believers that fundamentalist Protestantism has. (Mind you, I am basing my opinion upon reading the writings of the Greek Orthodox Church here in the US, so there may still be much to learn--but reading their positions I find more SENSE than a good many Protestant sites.)

 

[sidious618]

There'll most likely be a schism on whether or not preists can marry again as they've been allowing in some priests who are married.

 

[Kegg]

^
Who are letting in 'married priests'?

The first time I ever heard a pastor say from the pulpit that it was OK to not believe the world was created in 6 days was, believe it or not, backwoods Arkansas.

This is an accepted viewpoint in liberal Protestantism and Roman Catholicism in general, so creationist science is a rather uniquely American thing.

Oh...and this is just a personal speculation, but I've also thought that if the Orthodox Church could just ditch the idea that women don't have the same position as men, that could be huge.

I don't know. Wouldn't prospective American converts of the Protestant persuasion still be a little offput by the icons? The Orthodox have an emphasis on the veneration of icons that goes even beyond Catholicism, as well as a prominent place for the Virgin Mary, the saints, and so on. I'm no expert but I'm guessing the biggest thing in their favour here would be the lack of a Pope? Or what?

<-- is not exactly an expert, clearly, and only knows of the Orthodox through his book-larnin' and visits to Greece. The Orthodox community in Ireland is tiny and it was only a few years ago that there was a visit from the Patriarch of Constantinople.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

They might not necessarily convert, though some may. However, I think it would be quite the inspiration to REALLY get people to speak out against fundamentalism...that kind of watershed event could be a major opening.

 

[Kegg]

I don't know. I think in the context of fundamentalism other liberal Protestantism has more relevance because they have less differences in theology and they come, broadly speaking, form the same tradition.

But hey, what do I know? Not a lot, that's true.

 

[Michael Chris]

^
Who are letting in 'married priests'?

I believe the Catholic church will be soon. Anglican priests will be allowed to be in communion while married.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-10-31-vatican-married-priests_N.htm

 

[superstring01]

Why would God send someone to hell over suicide?

He wouldn't on account of the fact that, realistically, there is no god.

Assuming that there is an omnipotent, omniscient deity, it would know what's in your heart and what your ultimate mental state was. Ergo, if you were a selfish bastard, had lived your life miserably and were hellbent on causing pain in the lives of others--to the effect that you take your own life--it's logical to assume you'd end up in some other place than Heaven. However, if you were a mentally troubled individual, a physically tormented individual, or both--to the effect that you ended your life only out of a lack of mental capacity to know better or out of some overwhelming need to end your suffering--presumably said deity would know this fact and judge you accordingly.

All this begs one to wonder, why a merciful deity would create a place of infinite torment and suffering. More than likely, any deity would simply terminate the consciousness of a violator (total death), move the violating consciousness to another existence to grow and mature (reincarnation) or sentence the violating consciousness to a period of exposure to the pain he's caused coupled with a hyper-awareness of the euporia he denied himself (as in: everybody goes to the same place but in different potions from God, the good being closer and the bad being further but with full awareness of the wrongs of our lives: Sheol, by some accounts).

~String

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Who is the arbiter of that price?
God? How do you know?

Why God? Why not Brahma? Why not Zeus?
Which rules do we follow? There are a million gods to choose from, and not one of them has spoken up to give any indication that they're the genuine article. So what you're saying is that it is reliant upon men to tell other men that their God has given them a choice. You say God has given us brains and free will.

A million gods, a million choices, only one is right and none are telling.

Do you consider that fair?

It seems to me that any God who wanted someone to worship them and obey them would establish their authority immediately and unwaveringly.
Such is not the case, as we have seen and continue to see. If there is such a God, then they are stacking the deck against you.

J.

J, I have seen you vehemently convinced of your faith and then abandon it on numerous occasions. If this was a one time event I'd give you points for it, but it's not. I fully expect you to be back here in a couple of months stating you're a Christian or a mystic or something.

Why am I saying this? Because with all due respect, I believe you were never a believer in Christ to begin with. Had you been you wouldn't be asking the questions you just asked above.

And somehow I think Christ stacks the deck in my favor, not against me.

Why don't you answer his question instead of going ad hominem?

To answer his question, Christ speaks quite clearly to me. That is why He is the One over any other. I just assume he's never been touched by Christ. If he had been we wouldn't be having this conversation in my opinion.'

 

[TheLonelySquire]

And somehow I think Christ stacks the deck in my favor, not against me.

I don't mean this as a personal attack, but that is a pretty arrogant statement, and it goes along with how religion is inherently built on arrogance: the fact that religion causes certain people to become closer to something they cannot define, particularly when that somehting just so happens be the creator of the entire universe, yet these people think that God stacks the cards in their favor.

How arrogant and presumptuous is that?

Please.....

Well, Christ tells us the only way to the Father is through Him. Now I'll grant you that I can't define God for you but I can certainly define Him for me. I have felt the power of Christ whether you want to believe it or not.

And perhaps "stacking the deck" isn't a good choice of words as card games imply a factor of luck, and there's nothing "lucky" about Christ.

 

[Amaris]

J, I have seen you vehemently convinced of your faith and then abandon it on numerous occasions. If this was a one time event I'd give you points for it, but it's not. I fully expect you to be back here in a couple of months stating you're a Christian or a mystic or something.

Why am I saying this? Because with all due respect, I believe you were never a believer in Christ to begin with. Had you been you wouldn't be asking the questions you just asked above.

And somehow I think Christ stacks the deck in my favor, not against me.

Why don't you answer his question instead of going ad hominem?

To answer his question, Christ speaks quite clearly to me. That is why He is the One over any other. I just assume he's never been touched by Christ. If he had been we wouldn't be having this conversation in my opinion.'

You say that Christ speaks to you. What about people who feel the earth speaks to them? What about people who feel that the Mother Goddess speaks to them?

Who is right?

A million gods, a million choices.
Only one is right, and none are telling.

Do you think that is fair?

J.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

And somehow I think Christ stacks the deck in my favor, not against me.

I don't mean this as a personal attack, but that is a pretty arrogant statement, and it goes along with how religion is inherently built on arrogance: the fact that religion causes certain people to become closer to something they cannot define, particularly when that somehting just so happens be the creator of the entire universe, yet these people think that God stacks the cards in their favor.

How arrogant and presumptuous is that?

Please.....

Well, Christ tells us the only way to the Father is through Him. Now I'll grant you that I can't define God for you but I can certainly define Him for me. I have felt the power of Christ whether you want to believe it or not.

And perhaps "stacking the deck" isn't a good choice of words as card games imply a factor of luck, and there's nothing "lucky" about Christ.

Thanks for the responce. However, despite changing some of your own wording a bit, you actually didn't address my point, not even remotely.

I mean, if God exists, he has dominion over time (billions and billions of years) space (billions and billions of light years) nand all life (billions and billions of sould throughout all time) and you seem to think he gives one damn what you are doing right now that gives you oneness with him? That is arrogant, and that arrogant, and that arrogance tat relgiious people don't see that drives me up the wall.

Yet, if someone says that they are just as close to god as you are but then they kill someone in the name of him, we lock him in an asylum. The line is very, very thin.

To paraphrase a famous quote: those who give credance to absurdities will commit atrocities.

 

[Kegg]

I mean, if God exists, he has dominion over time (billions and billions of years) space (billions and billions of light years) nand all life (billions and billions of sould throughout all time) and you seem to think he gives one damn what you are doing right now that gives you oneness with him?

Why not?

Why do we assume that since God is so staggeringly big and his control of things so vast he can't care about the smallest and most inconsequential aspects of it? He's God; he might be just as concerned about the life cycle of any given ant as he is the birth and death of a star.

In fact, given, the idea there is an all-knowing, all-powerful, and highly compassionate God, the further idea that this God interested in all the intriciacies of his highly complicated thing called creation seems rather sensible, no?

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

no, it seems arrogant.

We could address the logical contradictions of an all knowing, all powerful god first.

IF god knows all that is going to happen, wouldn't that make him powerless tO stop it?

Or we could address the all-benevolent claim. See, too much tragedy happens for him to be benevolent, but what really really points to his utter lack of benevolence are things in the bible, how he can kill someone for no reason, or the fact that he endorses slavery. See, I am more moral than your god because I will say that not only is slavery wrong today, but t was always wrong.

But enough of that: Is'nt your definition of God just oh-so-conveneient, some super-duper magic man that is all knowing all seeing, that created everything, yet doesn't need ANYTHING TO ACCOUNT FOR ITS OWN EXISTANCE, YET HE CARES ABOUT WHAT i DO?"